Field Validator in Create Transition not working with Advanced Roadmaps

[David Wuth]

In the Create transition I added a validator that a field must not be empty. This works fine in Jira, but not in Advanced Roadmaps. The field is on the Advanced Roadmaps grid and has a value in the corresponding row, but the value does not seem to be recognized. When I try to "save the changes in Jira" from the Review Changes button in Advanced Roadmaps, I get an error that the field must have a value.

[Dave]

Hi @David Wuth,

Just to clarify - you're entering a value for the field in the plan, but you're still getting the required field modal popping up when you attempt to save the changes? Which field have you created the validator for? Is this a custom field? If so, which type? Are you seeing the value showing up in the Review Changes dialog?

Regards,

Dave

[David Wuth]

I have the issue with two fields. One is a custom field (single choice drop down), the other is the Jira Teams field.

[David Wuth]

BTW, I had previously found JSWCLOUD-19311 as a bug that describes exactly what is not working for me (both the custom field and Teams field). Seems that Atlassian does not want to fix this...

[Dave]

Thanks for sharing that link @David Wuth ...I've had a look through https://jira.atlassian.com/browse/JSWCLOUD-19311 and I noted that it was originally marked as for the Live Plans interface (which will no longer be available after July 31st) this year. It was closed due to the age and lack of interest ... it's not a question of "wanting" to fix bugs, we want to fix all bugs - it's just that the reality is that it's not possible to fix everything due to resources available, we also have to consider the cost, risk and impact of making any changes - this is nothing unique to Atlassian. The bug was closed as "Won't Fix" because nothing had happened with it in 4 years and it was marked as being a problem on a deprecated interface. Our aim with closing it was to improve transparency and set clearer expectations.

However it does look like that bug can be reproduced on the new interface, so arguably this could be re-opened and the description updated ... that unfortunately doesn't necessarily mean that it will be scheduled for an immediate fix, and I wouldn't want to give any false hope that it would. I'll look into this more next week - if you haven't already I would definitely raise a support request as that does have an impact on priority ranking of bugs.

Regards,

Dave